Truth is, feminists are worse than an annoyance. They’re a menace to us men. They’re dangerous. They are out to get us put in jail or prison for nothing. They are out to get us fired from our jobs for fake sexual harassment charges, thereby depriving us of a means to earn a living.

Feminists are our deadly enemies, and there can be no peace accords with them.

While the movement for women’s equality called Women’s Liberation (equity feminism) was one of the great human emancipation movements and should be supported by all decent men, gender feminism is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Here are 21 ways that gender feminists are currently ruining the West:

Made women run amok and become completely uncontrolled.

Created mass mental illness among women. Fully 8% of women now have Borderline Personality Disorder, which is just about a psychological death sentence. I think feminism is causing all this mass mental illness among women.

Vastly increased the violence and assaultiveness of women as women now assault men vastly more than they used to.

Women act crazy, flip out, and are much more unstable and emotional than they were pre-feminism. Feminism has made women think it is cool to be a moody nutcase.

Feminism created mass female hypergamy. The much maligned PUA and Game Movements who have created philosophies to try to survive, understand and make the most of this new crazy sexual world.

Female strangers attack innocent men now for little or no reason, try to fight innocent men, pick on and belittle innocent men and harass innocent men on the streets, all for little to no reason.

Men can no longer make friends with kids or even speak to kids. This is due to Pedophile Mass Hysteria, an idiotic Moral Panic that was created 100% by feminism. Single males are now regarded as “pedophiles” and treated with suspicion by neighbors. There has been an epidemic of false reports by children accusing men of molesting them. Kids lie like rugs when it comes to these accusations. Much of this lying has been encouraged by their mothers to get back at men in their lives. This whole scenario was created by feminism.

Male sexuality is now pathologized. Men are “creeps” if they experience any sexual feelings at all around feelings because these feelings will cause men to look at women, flirt with them and possibly make passes at them. Feminism hates men looking at, flirting or asking out women as all of this is considered “sexual harassment.” Hence we have millions of males who are running scared of being called creeps and whatnot.

Apparently it is now illegal for men to look at, flirt with, make passes at or ask out females in their workplace. Well not illegal, but it is grounds for firing under the insane “sexual harassment” rulings which create a crazy environment that makes no sense. Say you are at work and you do not wish to be accused of sexual harassment. How should you proceed to look at, flirt with and ask out women in the workplace assuming you might want to do this? There is no way to proceed. There is no way to know when you are sexually harassing a women or when you are not harassing them. The whole concept in civil law is ridiculously vague and in law, vague laws are illegal and vague concepts require no remedy.

Society has now pathologized all of male sexuality. This was done by feminism because from Day One, feminism has hated male sexuality. That is the reason d’etre of feminism. There is nothing that feminism hates more than normative male sexuality. Bottom line is that if feminists had their way, they would simply make most expressions of normative male sexuality illegal.

Sweden now has the most insane rape laws on Earth with definitions of rape vastly broader than in any other country. Hence, Sweden has the 3rd highest rape rate on Earth, but most of these are fake rapes that are not even rapes and would not be considered rape in any other land.

Society or at least some US university systems and the nation of the UK, have decided that males accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent. This dangerous lunacy was created by feminists who apparently wish to shred the Constitution.

Gangs of high school girls now chase, harass, bait, insult and even assault and beat up boys. This is a preposterous trend and this was unheard of in my high school days in 1971-1975.

Women are allowed to assault men as many times as they wish but we cannot strike one single blow in self defense. I suppose we can’t even defend ourselves if they are trying to kill us. Apparently we have to run away and hope the bitch doesn’t outrun us. The feminists created the idiotic, chaotic and insane notion of “hit a woman, go to jail,” and “males have no right to self-defense against women.” Obviously this is utterly insane but this the mad world that women want.

Sex between teenage girls and adult men, a normal human phenomenon present since the beginning of mankind that has never harmed one teenage girl ever, has been conflated with “pedophilia” and “child molestation.” Teenage girls are infantalized and denied agency. Whatever it is, adult male-teenage girl sex is surely not pedophilia or child molesting. In terms of males 18-23 having sex with 14-17 year old girls, the police generally regarded it as none of their business and left everyone alone. However, over age 23 you could into trouble, which was often a warning to stay away from her or else. Back in the sane days of Male Rule it was called Statutory Rape, which is the best term for it. It was regarded as a joke, the girls were seen as schemers and not victims, and the men were chuckled about. Nevertheless, if the man was middle aged and there was more than one girl, he might see a few years in prison. This was probably a much saner way of dealing with this matter.

If adult men have even mere thoughts, feelings and desires to have sex with teenage girls (which of course is normal for any man at any age) feminism has now decided that this is sick, evil, mentally disordered, perverted, “pedophilic,” and evidence that one is a “child molester.” This goes against modern psychological science which proves that this thinking is normal in any man of any age and is not evidence of pathology or immorality. Hence we see that feminists, like Republicans, are actually waging war on science itself.

A wave of idiotic feminist therapists has broken across our blighted land. They believe many a silly thing, but the worst is that many of them have specialized in “treating child sexual abuse,” which in reality means “teenage girls who have sex with men.” Once a case like this is uncovered, the poor girls are rushed off to needless therapy to heal the “assault” which was probably consensual or even initiated by the girl. The girl is told she has been “molested” and is a victim of “child sexual assault” even though she isn’t even a child and in almost all cases, there was no assault. To give you an example of how crazy this is, feminists have decided that a teenage girl who seduces an adult man has consensual and often very willing sex with him has been assaulted by the man that she herself seduced. So by seducing the man she is apparently raping herself via the man somehow. None of this makes any sense. The girls are told that they have been damaged and harmed, that the effects of the “abuse” (there almost always was no “abuse”) may last a lifetime and that this was a terrible thing that was done to them, one of the most horrible things that could happen to a human being. The teenage girl is confused as she thought she was just seducing a sexy older man for some great sex and now she is told that she was actually raping herself and that the horrible scars may last a lifetime. Predictably, the girls are traumatized by all of this nonsense and begin to believe that they have been harmed somehow. Depression, anxiety and other psychological problems ensue that would never have happened in the first place. These psychiatric symptoms were actually caused by the feminist therapists and the other feminist women hovering around the poor girl like lobotomized vultures. Congratulations feminists!

All child sex has now been proscribed and apparently made illegal, including child sex play that is extremely common and almost always harmless. Hundreds of children under age 12 have been charged with “child molestation.” It is very difficult to conceive of how any child age 12 and under could possibly molest any child, but nevertheless, these little kids have now been labeled “predators.” Many will have to go on the Sex Offender Registry for life. Many high school students, almost always males because in child sex the male is always the criminal and the female is always the victim as per feminist “logic” have been arrested and charged with “child molestation” for having consensual sex with the females in their age group. Not one of these boys is a “child molester” and it isn’t even possible to “molest” a teenage girl anyway as you can only molest a child age 12-under. Therefore, while one can have sex with a teenage girl, it is not possible to “molest” one. A number of teenagers, including many girls, have been arrested on charges of “manufacturing child pornography” and “disturbing child pornography.” What they actually did was take nude photos of themselves with cellphones and then send them to their boyfriends or girlfriends. Apparently the feminists say that these selfies are “child porn” and these adolescents are “child pornographers.” All of the madness under the rubric of Pedophile Mass Hysteria outlined above was caused almost wholly by the feminists. It was the feminists who launched the Pedophile Mass Hysteria moral panic in the first place when they set it off in 1970’s. So all those kids in jail or on the Sex Offender list can thank a feminist for their ruined lives.

Seduction is now rape. Traditionally, seduction proceeded often through a variety of tricks, scams and ruses all designed to break down a woman’s defenses and get her into bed. The idiotic self impressed PUA crowd think they have invented some new social science in Game, but the truth is that “Game” has been around forever. My friends and I were practicing “1970’s Game” on the beaches and ski slopes in the 1970’s. We traded secrets and told each other what to and what not to do. The whole business wasn’t very honest, but seducers are never honest men. All players have a “system.” Surely Casanova himself had one. And it goes back further than that. There is a classic work from Ancient Rome written in Latin called “On Love.” If you read it, you will see that is simply Game in Rome in the year 200. There is nothing new here. Nevertheless, seduction has an old history and its own accepted mores, rules and values. The proper seducer simply more or less attacks the women, gently or roughly and sees how far he can get with her. Before he assaults her, he tries to read her mind and read the vibes to see if she will be receptive or not. If he is a good mind-reader, 90%+ of the time, the woman will react very willingly to the initial advances. If she says no, the man stops. Now psychological coercion and also sorts of deviousness and con artistry comes into place where the seducer tries to brainwash or hypnotize the women into being more physically forthcoming. Alternatively, the man may simply give up and go sit on the couch. Let’s get real here: seduction is a scam. It always has been and perhaps it always will be. I learned very early that the earnest straightforward approach was the road to failure. One of the first things I learned was, “Never ask a woman if she wants to have sex or if she wants to do anything sexual. Don’t give her a chance to think about it. Once she starts thinking about it, she might decide that she doesn’t want to do it.” Keeping that in mind, feminists have come up with a brilliant new scheme to drive a stake through the heart of the seduction process. According to feminists, the male must ask permission for each sexual escalation. The women then says either yes or no. If she affirms, he may escalate, but if she says no, he must drop everything and go sit on the couch with a bowl of popcorn and a movie. One “no” and the sexual behavior is over. Of course keeping in mind the brilliant evidence I was given as a young man, this asking for permission idiocy seems designed to drive a stake through the very heart of the heart of the seduction process which is to not give the woman a chance to think about what she is doing but to simply get her revved up so she is listening to her body and not her head. This is now the system in place at all California universities. This Alice in Wonderland system is also in place at other US universities. Anyway, if she says no and you proceed, you are now a rapist. Thanks a lot feminists!

It is now possible to rape a woman who did not even object to her seduction. Traditionally, same male laws stated that women had to voice their objections to sexual activity. If the man proceeded anyway despite her forceful objections and physically forced himself on her, this could be seen as rape. Feminists have now thrown all of this out. You can now be a rapist even if the woman didn’t utter one peep of objection. This is because a woman’s silence to sexual escalations could mean affirmation or objection or everything or nothing. Who knows? If a woman is silent during the seduction process, men must become mind-readers and decide if this woman who is not saying no is nonetheless not consenting to sex. If a woman is neither saying “yes” or “no” then she could be assenting and you are in the clear or she could be objecting in which case you are now raping her. Yes you can rape a woman even if she never offered one peep of objection if you did not practice proper telepathy to decide if her silence meant yes or no. So now silence no longer indicates assent, as it would in any sane society. Instead we have to be mind-readers and seduction is turned into Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride. This idiocy is now the law in the UK and on California college campuses. Feminists are 100% responsible for this abomination. Thanks feminists!

The time-honored tradition dating back to English Common Law that states that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty has now been trashed by feminists. Accused rapists are now the equivalent of unlawful combatants in Guantanamo. All accused rapists are guilty until proven innocent in the UK and on California campuses. It is up to the man to prove the Kafkaesque assertion that he did not rape her. How a man is supposed to prove he did not rape a woman he probably had a date with and ended up in bed with is unknown. So we see that feminists resemble Republicans not only in their contempt for science but also in their desire to shred the very Constitution itself.

Mount Holyoke College, a women’s college driven insane by gender feminism, has decided to ban the iconic and controversial feminist play The Vagina Monologues because it discriminates against “women without vaginas.” The official reason is that the whole notion of the play is to say that women have vaginas, and saying that women have vaginas is ‘transphobic.”

How stupid. If you have a vagina, you’re a woman. If you don’t have one, you’re not a woman. Real simple. A 12 year old could figure that out.

As if we didn’t already know what the word means – duh – MHC defines, or redefines, the word for us. Unfortunately, their definition of the word woman is completely insane and makes no sense at all. The new definition of woman has nothing to do with what you, me, and all the other sane people know it means.

Pretty amazing video. Some Muslim group is holding a function during Berlin’s Islam Week. The balding man is a well-known leader of Berlin’s Muslim community, but he is not too well-liked by non-Muslims who consider him to be a fake moderate and a loudmouth.

I believe they are having some sort of a discussion about Islam in this conference room and the balding guy is hosting the discussion. The room is full of Muslims, mostly Muslim women for some reason. Almost all of the Muslim women are wearing the Muslim headscarf.

Halfway through the presentation, provocateurs from Ukraine’s feminist FEMEN group burst into the room and onto the stage. They are naked from the waist up. They have anti-Islam slogans written on their chests. One woman has “FUCK ISLAM” written on her chest. They take the stage and start yelling anti-Islam slogans.

The group is shocked at first and does not know what to do about them. The Muslim women stand up and start yelling at them, telling them to go away. The Muslimas are clearly disgusted by these provocateurs. The conference host does not seem to know what to do. At one point, the Muslims decide that if they give the women a standing ovation and cheer them on, that this will be enough to get the women to leave the stage. But the FEMEN girls refuse to leave the stage. The cops finally have to be called. The girls resist arrest and have to be dragged out of the room. They are screaming the whole time.

All of these things are just provocations. I expect many more of these provocations to happen in the near future. Really they are trying to bait the Muslims into responding to these insults and provocations. You could argue that the Muslims should just be cool in the face of blasphemy and other insults, but their religion just doesn’t work that way. I actually think they have been pretty calm in the aftermath to the Charlie Hebdo shootings.

These provocations will continue and will probably escalate in both size and offensiveness. The Muslims will no doubt start responding to some of the provocations. Surely more violence will occur. The non-Muslims will respond to Muslim violence the same way the French did the next day after the Paris attacks – two mosques were attacked with hand grenades. No doubt this will escalate into a tit for tat war.

Ever study the history of the Algerian War? It was like that. The FLN were definitely terrorists, but the French Foreign Legion responded with a lot of repression and torture. Food was cut off from entire cities. The more the French engaged in repressions against the populace, the angrier the Algerians got. What started out as limited terrorism soon bloomed into full scale terrorist war as the FLN was now tossing bombs and grenades into cafes full of French people.

You would be walking down and street and suddenly hear a loud gunshot. You jerk your head up and look across the street. The rebels have assassinated a 10 year old French boy just because he is French. Blood is pouring out of his head as he lies on the sidewalk. The Algerians look around anxiously. They know that the French payback for this crime is coming soon, and it won’t be pretty.

I think this tit for tat, paybacks are a bitch, feuding style of low grade war is probably going to happen in the near future in Europe and even in the US, Canada, and Australia.

The comments are full of MRA types bashing this guy to Kingdom Come as a male feminist, which is unfortunate. I am not very wild about what passes for male feminists these days – they are basically men defending gender feminism, so they are defending the indefensible. However, I can resonate with this guy.

The only part I did not like was at the beginning when he talked about Miley Cyrus being sexually objectified. I like the fact that women are sexually objectified. I think it is great. Also, if you look around you, you will notice that a very large number of women seem to enjoy sexually objectifying themselves, or making themselves beautiful and sexy for men.

The comments about porn are unfortunately true. Much porn now is misogynistic as all get out, but honestly, it’s always been that way. I started watching porn back in the 1970’s and it was very misogynistic even way back then. I do not know what the solution is, but I have always liked porn and I continued to watch a fair amount of it even into my fifties

Most women I meet tell me that they watch porn sometimes and that they like it. They like it pretty down and dirty too. They put on a couple of nipple clamps, get their clit vibe out, turn on some really dirty gonzo porn and diddle away to orgasm after orgasm.

The only complaint I have heard from women about porn is that they look at the beautiful women in porn and compare themselves unfavorably to those women. They do not think their faces or bodies look good enough compared to the women in porn. However, there is a ton of porn out there now with very ordinary, fat or even homely women in it. Most of it is amateur porn.

This holds true for men too. All the guys in porn now are so buffed. Look at those six packs. Are they all on roids? They are also extremely masculine, covered with tattoos, shaved heads or very short hair – super macho guys.

Well, that’s not me.

And I suppose I do compare myself unfavorably to these porn guys because that’s just not me – I am not a super macho type. Back in the 70’s, the men in porn were quite different. They were more ordinary guys, metrosexual, hippiesih and androgynous in a good sense (Mick Jagger androgynous, not Boy George androgynous). That’s all gone now, and all we have are these muscled meatheads who look like they are going to kill you.

The rest of the talk was ok. I do not usually like these types when they start going on, but this one was different. I actually think he is an MRA in sense in addition to being a feminist.

Back in the 1970’s, there was a movement called Men’s Liberation which could be seen as the leftwing of the Men’s Movement. Warren Farrell and Robert Bly both came out of this movement. There were some problems with it, such as a worrying tendency towards promoting homosexual behavior (arguments were made that Men’s Libbers needed to “confront their hangups about sex with other men” – yuck), but then the feminist movement has always had that problem too, and they were much more guilty of this than the Men’s Libbers.

Although the Men’s Libbers and the feminists saw themselves as allies in the beginning (both were part of the general Liberation movements of the 1960’s which I and many others supported), some fights started pretty early on. By 1975, Men’s Libbers were offering pointed critiques of worrying trends in gender feminism and especially radical feminism. Radical feminism is now so nuts that only the most masochistic man would sign up for it, and even worse, radical feminists have long been at the reins of the feminist movement itself.

I could see these Jackson Katz fellow as both a male feminist and a Men’s Lib guy even though Men’s Lib hardly exists anymore. Most of these male feminists are not very sensible, and way too many of them are gay men, which seriously taints the whole male feminist project. Katz also a very masculine guy, even though he is critiquing masculinity. And he is not slamming masculinity per se; he is slamming the more idiotic, destructive, unhealthy and disordered aspects of it, which is a great idea.

I have noticed over at A Voice for Men, a site which is still far too misogynistic for my tastes, there have been some recent articles about how the Men’s Movement ought to welcome gay men into the movement. Of course that makes sense, but a lot of MRA’s are going to flip if they hear that. After all, gay men are men too, and men’s issues are their issues. But this move on Elam’s part seems to be a move in a Men’s Lib-type direction away from MRA reaction, which is heartening.

I have a lot more to say about his critique of masculinity but it is quite depressing and I will leave it at this for now.

Basically I would argue that redefining masculinity is a great idea (the Men’s Libbers were the first to do this) but sadly it doesn’t work in the real world because women still do not like transformed men even though they insist they do. They say they want a new man, but what they really want deep down inside is a macho meathead bad boy who ends up mistreating them.

So if you go the New Man route you are going to be forever running into women, even or especially feminist women, frankly challenging your masculinity because you are not the meathead of her dreams.

Not only that, but you will spend much of your life being accused of being a homosexual and having to argue with pinheads who insist that you are gay and you couldn’t possibly be straight. I do not know about you, but having to tell people you’re not gay gets pretty tiresome after a while, mostly because it’s a dumb question in the first place as picking out homosexual men is a trivial exercise. Is that the way you want to spend your life?

Well,this is what lies in store for you if you try to redefine masculinity and live that way.

At this late date, my basic attitude is to say fuck it and be the macho meathead that everyone apparently wants me to be.

Queer Theory is utterly ridiculous, completely stupid, and 100% bonkers. Structuralism plus a bunch of more or less homosexual types. It’s mandatory to be some type of homosexual in Queer Theory World. It’s best if you are gay, and that’s what Queer Theory is really all about, but bisexuals are welcome too, although most people who identify as “Queer” even if they are bisexual tend to lean towards the homosexual end.

I was surfing porn on Tumblr one night (Come on – cheer me on! I am 57 years old!) and I came across some porn videos by a bunch of radical feminists. I forget who exactly they were fucking. But I noticed in their statement of principles about this porn company they were founding that one of the principles was something like

7. Stay Queer.

Yeah, “Stay Queer?” What in the Hell does that mean? Well, really that’s what we all need to do right? First we need to Go Queer, and then we need to Stay Queer.

All you guys who like pussy, get a clue.

All you women who are strictly dickly – oh come on, that is so 20th century!

Nothing is defined in Queer Theory because nothing has any definition. True to its structuralist roots, nothing means anything in Queer Theory. This lack of definitions or proof of anything on Earth is a problem in all of the fake sciences (I mean Social Sciences! Excuse me!). Nothing means anything, nothing is true, nothing can be defined. I guess nothing is real either. We must all be in the Matrix.

It’s not so much that nothing means anything in Queer Theory but more that anything can mean anything. All definitions are all inclusive. Can straight people define themselves as “Queer?” Sure! Knock yourself out! What about people who have “normative sexuality?” Welcome aboard! Queer Theory embraces you too.

The problem is that when a crazy, perverted weirdo from the Cultural Marxist freakshow defines themselves as “Queer” it literally means nothing whatsoever. Sure, there is some major homosexuality implied, but it’s only implied. Could be a lesbian living with shemale. Or a gay man living with a transman. Seven different types of genderqueer? Are you kidding? We got more gender flavors than Baskin Robbins!

Of course if you are sane and object to any of this obvious psychopathology is Weirdo Chic or whatever it is, you happen to be a bigot. You know, like a racist, cracker, Nazi, KKK, White supremacist, ugly, evil type of person. Why? Because you firmly believe that weirdos are weirdos and are not normal. Because you think normal actually has a real definition that has nothing to do with Queer Theory.

Nowadays you can actually major in Queer Studies. Back in the 1970’s, that would have been a great joke. Now the ludicrous is real. Now why anyone would major in Queer Studies, I have no idea.

There do happen to be a few seminal Queer Studies documents. One is called Is the Rectum a Grave? by Leo Barsani. I actually read this document for some reason one afternoon. Turns out it is an incomprehensible piece of Critical Theory that has nothing to do with its title, homosexuality, AIDS, or really anything.

Mr. Barsani is a gay man who is a tenured professor at some university. He regularly writes about how he hangs out in gay bars, picks up guys on the street, goes to wild gay orgies, visits bathhouses and generally lives a highly degenerate lifestyle.

Now if I did that as a straight professor, I assume I would go up before a Tenure Committee. That is if a feminist hit squad didn’t get me first.

Queers have all the fun!

A major Queer Studies book was recently released. In it, a tenured US professor and gay man writes about how we really should not put down bug-chasers. Bug-chasers are homosexual men who are going out and deliberately trying to get infected with HIV.

This professor writes about how liberating it is to have sex with countless men with no Comstockian condoms to get in the way of the dangerous fun. These men are rebels, thumbing their nose at society while they drop hits of sexual strychnine in bathhouses or on Fire Island.

This book has provoked many comments online. A lot of the Queer Studies types have been cheering this stupid book on.

Their reviews are full of thick structuralist fog. They don’t say much of anything except bug-chasing is cool and how we are all bigots if we think bugchasing is indicative of mental illness. It turns out that there is something edifying and profound about mad human lemming marches!

I have only scratched to surface of this insane field, but I am sure you get the picture. Gay and Lesbian Studies was pretty preposterous – queers and lesbians staring at their navels and scribbling solipsistically – but Gay and Lesbian Studies looks reasonable compared to Queer Studies.

Yes, there are actually Queer Studies departments at major universities.

And I really do hate Amanda Marcotte. I always wondered why the Manosphere hated her so much, and now I get it. She is a stereotypical feminist lunatic crazy bitch on steroids. Here is one of her latest insipid tirades.

According to Marcotte, gender essentialism is where you think there are inherent biological differences between men and women. Gender essentialism is sexism. In that case, I am absolutely a sexist 100%, and I am very proud to be one. Not only that, but I am certain I will be a proud sexist for the rest of my life.

Marcotte says that if you believe that men are more aggressive or violent then women, then you are a sexist. I certainly believe that men are more aggressive and violent then women, and not only that, but it is inborn in men and women to be this way.

Marcotte says if you believe that men are less nurturing then women, you are a sexist. Of course men are far less nurturing than women, and this is inborn.

Much of the post is about whether men have better critical thinking skills than women. I think I will pass on that one, but my only comment would be that although women can be excellent at critical thinking, they do not like to do the sort of critical thinking that involves the abstract word of ideas and concepts. However, I believe that women are excellent at critical thinking when it comes to relationships, children, the sexes and other things that they value. Its not that they cannot do that pure intellectual type thinking, but it’s more that they think it is boring.

That is why the female pure intellectual is not so common as the male pure intellectual. I have met some very smart women, some with IQ’s of 140+. However, many of them could not be described as pure intellectuals. They are just as smart as men with the same IQ, but these women found that intellectual world to be a snooze-fest. They were simply not interested in things like that.

Their interests were more along the lines of people, the sexes, the emotions, sexuality, human personality, relationships and whatnot. This is the sort of thing women really get off on, and when it comes to intuitive thinking along those lines, no one does it better than a woman. So it’s not that one gender is inferior and the other is superior, it is more that their brains are different and their intelligences are more geared to certain areas as opposed to others. It’s a matter of interests, not ability.

Marcotte says if you think men can handle rough and tumble criticism and women tend to shy away from such things, then you are a sexist. But this is probably true. Women can be catty as Hell, but they dislike raw verbal aggression. They probably think it is ugly, scary or ridiculous, and often it is.

Let us ask my Mother, the smartest woman in the world about this. I told her that they are many people on line who absolutely love to fight with other people.

They get into wild fights with other posters and commenters that go on forever. In many cases, they insult and threaten each other, try to get each other fired from jobs, threaten to turn each other into authorities for some sort of violation, try to get each other kicked off websites of ISP’s, dig up personal dirt on each other and air it on the web, set up whole webpages just to smear other people, post under a never-ending array of fake names and handles (morphing), etc. I told her that a lot of them seem to actually enjoy this sort of ugliness, and they often spend hours a day attacking each other. Some of them were high-ranking people with good jobs such as university professors.

She nodded her head like she had heard it a million times.

“They’re mostly men, right?” She asked.

“Yes! They are almost all men!”

“Of course,” she said, shrugging her shoulders.

So going by that, it seems men love to fight just for the sake of fighting, and women do not. Who can take criticism better? All I know is that my girlfriends keep complaining that I have insulted them even when I didn’t intend to. They get horribly offended and angry, call me names, threaten me in various ways, try to hit me, break down into tears, refuse to talk to me for days on end. A lot of them seem to find fault in all sorts of petty things. So going by that, I would say that women don’t take criticism very well. In fact, they tend to break down.

Marcotte says that if you agree with or make statements like this, you are a misogynist:

Listen, honey. I go to strip clubs every week. I love women — especially when they’re covered in oil.

I do love women, especially when they are covered in oil. And I used to love to go to strip clubs. In that case, I am very proud to be a misogynist.

Marcotte says that if you believe that gendered violence in men (that is, men beating, raping, and killing women) is inborn, then you are a sexist. I do believe this. I do not believe that men are born to be violent towards women. Men are biologically more violent period, to both sexes. And yes, they are biologically more prone to rape. This sort of gendered violence will always be with us. You can reduce it, but it will never go away.

Bottom line is according to this women and countless other feminist nuts, I am a sexist and a misogynist. I agree with her, and I am very proud to be these things.

Why the Left has piggybacked on board all of these asinine movements is beyond me. Identity Politics is really like nationalism in a sense and it is inherently reactionary. IP feminists are nationalists supporting the “nation” of women. IP gays are nationalists supporting the gay nation. IP Blacks support the nation of Blacks. If ethnic nationalism is no good, then it corollaries in other “nations” such as the nations of women, gays, and transsexuals, is no good too.

Is it possible to be a sensible feminist? I suppose it is, but it requires some hair-splitting.

The radical feminist definition of sex and gender. Briefly, sex is what you are born into – a male or a female body. Gender in most cases is what happens when a male turns into a boy or a man or a female turns into a girl or woman.

Patriarchy is a caste system which takes humans who are born biologically male or female and turns them into the social classes called men and women.

This is so wrong. Gender is as real as race. In fact, my own philosophy at the moment is that Gender Realism has a lot more going for it than Race Realism.

I guess Gender Realism would say something like:

Gender is real, it is not socially constructed, and much of it is in fact biological in nature.

How many of you are Gender Realists? I would imagine that the vast majority of the older generation are. Every woman and girl I have ever dated was? Where are all these morons who insist that gender is socially constructed?